.- .- UNITED STATES STRICT COURT 3 Eastern District of Michigan UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORDER OF DETENTION BENDING TR. . V. gt Case Number: i 5 50Li 8g De?andant In accordance with the Ball Reform Act, 18 U. 3.0 3142(1), a detention hearing has been held. {conclude that the following facts it: quire the detention of the defendant pending trial in this case. Part I?Findings of Fact (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. 3142(t)(l) and has been convicted of a federal offense state or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had - that is a crime of violence as de?ned in 18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(4). an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death. an offense for which a maximum'term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in [j a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 us: C. or comparable state or local o??enses. [j (2) The offense described in ?nding (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local 01 [j (3) A period of not more than ?ve years has elapsed since the date of conviction release of the defendant from imprisonm :nt for the offense described in ?nding (1). i [j (4) Findings Nos. (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably a: sure the safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. Ifurther ?nd that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption. Alternative Findings (A) (I) There is probable cause to believe that thedefendant has committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by ?nding 1 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasons 31y assrme the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. Alternative Findings (B) [j (1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear. (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the Part II?-Written Statement of Reasons for Dew I ?nd that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence 94;: report- deranee of the evidence that 11 0 fl- 6% arm Part Regarding Detention The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for con?nement in a corrections facility :5 eparate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be at? :?orded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorne; for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall liver the defendant to the United States in connection wi a urt proceeding. I . \o lot< Dale i - .. Signatui?e?beudge ii Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub Name and Title of Judge "Insert as applicable: Controlled Substan Act (21 age}? 391 520131;) Con 11 Substances Import and Export Act (21 use. 5 951 et (0) Section 1 ofAct ofSept. 15, 1930 (21 use. 55a). OFFICE DETROIT Doc 11 Filed 10/01/Billy Arnold Order of Detention Defendant is charged in a federal criminal complaint with felon in possession of a firearm. He is 29 years old, single, and the father of two children from different women. He is unemployed, and last worked in April 2015 as a handyman. He is currently living with a girlfriend in Clinton Township in a rented apartment. From 2013 2014 he lived in the city of Detroit with a different girlfriend. Defendant admits to daily use of marijuana since the age of 18. Defendant allegedly has been a member of a Detroit gang called the Seven Mile Blood Street Gang for several years. One of the rival gangs of the Seven Mile Blood Street Gang is the Hustle Boys. Defendant Arnold has allegedly been involved in retaliation shootings between the two gangs, and postings of his picture appear on Instagram hit lists involving his gang and the Hustle Boys. On September 25, 2015 Defendant was observed leaving a local strip club getting and then getting into a car being driven by Steve Arthur Jr. Police followed the car, and then attempted to effectuate a traffic stop. The car sped off at speeds in excess of 100 with the police in pursuit. At the area of l-94 and l-75 the car tried to exit on the freeway ramp, but could not sustain itself in the turn, and plowed into the embankment with the police at the scene. In the back seat of the car was a loaded AR 15 assault rifle, with 50 live rounds. Defendant?s criminal record is significant in that he has had unremitting contacts with law enforcement since the age of 17. On May 2, 2004 he was arrested (age 17) and charged with felony controlled substance, delivery and manufacture and attempt misdemeanor controlled substance. He pled guilty to the second count and in June 2014 was sentenced to 90 days in jail. Just three months after being released from jail on December 13, 2004 Defendant (age 18) was charged with Felony weapons, carrying concealed and attempt felony weapons, carrying concealed. He was found guilty on the second count and was sentenced to two years of probation and 9 days confinement. On 12/26/2005 Defendant (age 19) was charged with misdemeanor burglary and a warrant was requested. A year later, on 12/1/2006 Defendant (age 20), and using an alias, was charged with a misdemeanor traffic offense. On April 20, 2007 Defendant (age 20) was charged with Felony Assault/Bodily Harm Less than Murder; Felony Weapons, Carrying Concealed; and Felony Weapons?Firearms-Possession by Felon; Misdemeanor Weapons-Firearms-Discharge While Aimed; Felony Weapons Felony Firearm. Defendant was convicted of each of these charges on 7/13/2007 and was sentenced to 3 years 11 months to 15 years incarceration. Defendant was paroled after his release from prison, and he was discharged from parole on March 19, 2015. The instant charges were brought six months after his discharge from parole. Doc 11 Filed 10/01/Defendant is known to have used multiple alias names and dates of birth. Defendant asks for a bond, arguing that he successfully completed parole and that his last contact with law enforcement was in 2007. Defendant glosses over the fact that he was sentenced to prison time in 2007, followed by parole, and that he was discharged from parole six months ago, on 3/19/2015. Pretrial Services interviewed the Defendant and concluded that he poses both a risk of flight and a danger to the community and recommends detention. This Court agrees that a preponderance of the evidence establishes Defendant as a flight risk, and that there is clear and convincing evidence that this Defendant poses a danger to the community. Specifically the nature of the facts in the instant offense as alleged, Defendant?s prior arrest and conviction history, his substance abuse history, the fact that he is unemployed and has no means of support, his violent behavior history (a PPO was issued while he was on parole, but the complaining witness refused to prosecute), his history of weapons possession and use, and his pattern of similar criminal activity that repeats, all in combination support a conclusion that Defendant poses a danger to the community. After analyzing the pertinent statutory factors, this Court finds that there is no condition or combination of conditions that would assure this Defendant?s appearance or the safety of the community. Therefore Detention is Ordered.